Peter’s Denial Predicted (John 13:33-35)

Preached on 30/3/2014

The Saviour has just instructed his disciples that they should love one another, with the guaranteed outcome that the world would then know that they are his disciples. Therefore, one would have expected the reaction of the disciples to involve asking Jesus in what ways they could love one another. Yet there is no hint that this type of question crossed their minds. Instead Peter asked a question about a matter that Jesus said they could not appreciate at the time. We could say that Peter was guilty of inappropriate curiosity and this attitude prevented him seeing the importance of a loving, practical, Christian outlook.    

Jesus revealed his patience towards Peter by expanding on where he was going and what it would mean for Peter. Jesus may have referred to his going to the cross when he said that Peter would eventually follow him because Peter suffered crucifixion many years later. But it is more likely that Jesus was referring to heaven because he shortly speaks about taking them to heaven (the Father’s  house in John 14:1-3). Yet even the thought of heaven could not prevent Peter from engaging in inappropriate curiosity.

Further Peter was not only marked by inappropriate curiosity. In addition he was marked by a profound misunderstanding of the words of Christ. He took Jesus’ words to refer to death at the hand of his enemies and Peter wanted to show his loyalty by stating he would protect Christ from his enemies, even to the point of death. Already in this chapter, Peter has twice indicated his misunderstanding of what Jesus taught. One instance, that of the identity of the traitor, is understandable, but the other, of trying to prevent Jesus wash his feet, is not.

                      

Peter’s problem

It was not that Peter lacked love to Jesus or was not sincere in his announcement that he would defend Jesus. The problem was that he was trusting in his own resolve and in his own abilities. In other words, he was trusting in his own strength. Of course, we cannot point the finger at Peter, because we have been guilty of similar failings.

I suppose the most likely place for trusting in our own strength may be when we are experiencing a spiritual high. Peter was in the presence of Jesus, listening to his teaching. He had just gone through a moving experience when Jesus washed his feet, although he had not learned the lesson that Jesus was teaching, which was that his people have a permanent need of cleansing.

Along with trusting in his own strength was a failure to depend upon the Lord’s strength. Peter should have had a prayer like the psalmist who cried in Psalm 17:5: ‘Hold up my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not.’ This is also a prayer for us when we are on the mountaintop with Jesus. Coming down the mountain can be a place for slipping.

What was the reason for Peter’s self-confidence? I suspect the main reason was his positive outlook on life. Optimism about my own abilities is not a help to faith in Christ, no matter how capable I am in other ways. Peter was a man of action, who had become used to standing for his own needs.

What were the ingredients of Peter’s self-confidence? John Brown mentions five sins that were lurking in Peter’s response. The first was unbelief because he contradicted the Saviour’s words; the second was pride because he imagined he could go where Jesus had said he could not go; the third was rashness, because he declared himself fit for an action he knew nothing about; the fourth was ignorance of both his own weakness and the nature of the Saviour’s kingdom; and the fifth was ingratitude in not accepting that he would get to heaven afterwards.

Three Marks of Peter’s self-confidence

A first mark is his ignoring the word of Jesus that he could not follow him in the path he was taking, which was via Calvary to heaven. John Brown comments that Jesus ’ answer should have both silenced and satisfied Peter, but it did neither. We may be amazed that Peter should ignore the word of Jesus, but are we not guilty also of doing so? Every sin that we have committed as Christians is forbidden in the Bible.

A second mark was his looking down on other believers. This was an obvious fault in Peter’s outlook at this time because he was sure that he would perform better than the others. It is likely that he had more natural strength than some of the others, yet he should have had sufficient self-knowledge to know that he was liable to fall.

The third mark was his failure to mortify particular sins. Peter had a sinful tendency to disagree with Jesus about his death. On a previous occasion, Peter had been given a warning on this matter by Jesus. ‘And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man’ (Mark 8:31-33). We may not have the same particular sin of Peter, but we are prone to particular sins. And if we don’t mortify these sins, it is a sign of self-confidence.

We can tell from the other Gospels that Peter did not listen to this warning. Mark records that later Peter repeated his self-confidence: ‘And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. ’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter said to him, “Even though they all fall away, I will not.” And Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.” But he said emphatically, “If I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And they all said the same’ (Mark 14:26-31). He listened to Jesus throughout the rest of the time they were in the Upper Room, still convinced that he would not deny his Master.

Two possible marks of our self-confidence

Many actual sins are expressions of self-confidence. A first is a willingness to walk as close to the world as possible. This attitude can range from the comment that there is no harm in a particular action to an articulate defence of Christian liberty. But behind that outlook is an expression of self-confidence that the individual will be able to handle the situation. Yet persisting in a wrong practice will result in a reduction of our commitment to Christ. Very few Christians fall suddenly; it is usually the result of a process. They develop other interests which stifle their spiritual development.

A second is not to be in a spirit of ongoing prayer. It is likely that most Christians will have a set time of prayer each day, perhaps more than one. I suspect that the disciples as devout Jews engaged in set times of daily prayer. Perhaps Peter and the other disciples already had had their devotions; after all, they would have been preparing to participate in the Passover. Yet it is evident that they were not in a spirit of prayer at that time.

The involvement of Satan

Luke gives further information about what Jesus said in the Upper Room regarding the fall of Peter. He records this warning from the Saviour: ‘“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me’ (Luke 22:31-34). Behind the scenes the devil was active.

The statement of Jesus about the devil’s involvement shows that his activity is dependent on divine permission. It is clear that permission was given, although the ordeal would lead eventually to Peter’s usefulness as an encourager of his fellow Christians. The statement also reveals that the intercession of the Saviour to preserve Peter is more powerful that the intention of the devil to destroy Peter.

There are similarities to what the devil asked here and what he had requested thousands of years previously with regard to Job. On that occasion too he had to ask permission more than once to test the Lord’s servant. Of course, Job even although he went through a series of disasters far greater than Peter went through, was in a good spiritual state and Satan discovered that Job would not succumb to the temptations he endured.

The words of Jesus reveal that the devil was watching Christ’s disciples at that time. Satan knew that Judas’ heart was not right and perhaps the devil wanted to test all of them regarding their genuineness. Perhaps the enemy guessed that Peter’s fine words were merely bravado. So the devil became one of Christ’s tools as sculpted the renewed character of Peter.

The obvious lesson from Peter’s assertions here is that self-confidence will result in dishonouring Jesus whereas those who are conscious of the weakness and depend on him will honour him.